Saturday, March 25, 2006
Judge Grants Injunction Allowing Child's Recess Bible Reading and Sharing
Judge Grants Injunction Allowing Child's Recess Bible Reading and Sharing
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker March 24, 2006
(AgapePress) - A federal judge has ordered an elementary school in Knoxville, Tennessee, to stop prohibiting a fifth-grade student from reading his Bible with a friend during recess.
Luke Whitson and his parents had filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Knox County School District officials for threatening to punish the fifth grader for reading his Bible during recess at Karns Elementary School. According to press reports, Knox County Schools officials had argued that Bible reading jeopardizes student safety. They also contended that recess is not "free time," and therefore school officials can prohibit Bible reading during that period of the day.
After trying unsuccessfully to resolve their dispute with the school over the unconstitutional policy through legal counsel, the Whitsons, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), filed suit. They contended that school officials, acting "under the authority and weight of the government" were denying a ten-year-old student's rights by refusing to allow him "merely to read his Bible and discuss passages found therein with a friend during recess time at school."
The case, Whitson v. Knox County Board of Education, was filed June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. The request for injunctive relief for Luke Whitson and his family argued that the protection of the fifth grader's "fundamental constitutional rights is clearly in the best interest of the public and will cause no harm to the school's ability to fulfill its education mission."
The court agreed with the arguments on behalf of Luke Whitson and his parents. Now, as part of a settlement ordered by U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips, the boy is free to bring his Bible to school, read it on the playground, and discuss it with friends from now until the end of the school year.
The Whitson's lead attorney, Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Nate Kellum, notes that while Judge Phillips strongly admonished the Knoxville school system, the only question he had for the family was why the dispute had not already been settled.
"He said when he read the pleadings, when he read the complaint, when he read the answer, when he saw the evidence, he could not see why the school was still contesting the matter," Kellum notes.
"And then he asked us why the case had not been settled," the lawyer continues, "and we told him, 'Well, because the school was unwilling to do that.' And so, as far as dressing down, the only dressing down that we noticed was that addressed to the other side."
Family's Fight for Fifth Grader's Rights Not Over Yet But although pleased with the settlement, Kellum says the dispute between the Whitsons and the school district is far from over. The district court, he explains, was asked to make sure Luke was not prevented from exercising his First Amendment rights while the case continues, and the preliminary injunction has provided this; however, a final legal resolution of the matter is still pending.
Also, there is the matter of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the fifth grader. "It's unbelievable really, when you think about it," the ADF spokesman says. "What happened is the principal brought a slander suit against a 10-year-old child for three million dollars, and that's certainly one of the issues as yet to be cleared up."
Kellum says the family's legal representatives are "in discussions with the school" about the principal's lawsuit, "and our hope and our prayer is that [the matter of the slander allegation] along with other issues will be resolved as well."
In the meantime, the attorney notes, the Knox County school officials' apparent "fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution" has been addressed for now and "Luke Whitson should not be prevented from exercising his First Amendment right to read his Bible with friends during recess."
Kellum says the Constitution of the United States, far from prohibiting Bibles during recess, actually prohibits the wholesale banning of Bibles during recess.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602779/posts
By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker March 24, 2006
(AgapePress) - A federal judge has ordered an elementary school in Knoxville, Tennessee, to stop prohibiting a fifth-grade student from reading his Bible with a friend during recess.
Luke Whitson and his parents had filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Knox County School District officials for threatening to punish the fifth grader for reading his Bible during recess at Karns Elementary School. According to press reports, Knox County Schools officials had argued that Bible reading jeopardizes student safety. They also contended that recess is not "free time," and therefore school officials can prohibit Bible reading during that period of the day.
After trying unsuccessfully to resolve their dispute with the school over the unconstitutional policy through legal counsel, the Whitsons, represented by attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), filed suit. They contended that school officials, acting "under the authority and weight of the government" were denying a ten-year-old student's rights by refusing to allow him "merely to read his Bible and discuss passages found therein with a friend during recess time at school."
The case, Whitson v. Knox County Board of Education, was filed June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. The request for injunctive relief for Luke Whitson and his family argued that the protection of the fifth grader's "fundamental constitutional rights is clearly in the best interest of the public and will cause no harm to the school's ability to fulfill its education mission."
The court agreed with the arguments on behalf of Luke Whitson and his parents. Now, as part of a settlement ordered by U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips, the boy is free to bring his Bible to school, read it on the playground, and discuss it with friends from now until the end of the school year.
The Whitson's lead attorney, Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Nate Kellum, notes that while Judge Phillips strongly admonished the Knoxville school system, the only question he had for the family was why the dispute had not already been settled.
"He said when he read the pleadings, when he read the complaint, when he read the answer, when he saw the evidence, he could not see why the school was still contesting the matter," Kellum notes.
"And then he asked us why the case had not been settled," the lawyer continues, "and we told him, 'Well, because the school was unwilling to do that.' And so, as far as dressing down, the only dressing down that we noticed was that addressed to the other side."
Family's Fight for Fifth Grader's Rights Not Over Yet But although pleased with the settlement, Kellum says the dispute between the Whitsons and the school district is far from over. The district court, he explains, was asked to make sure Luke was not prevented from exercising his First Amendment rights while the case continues, and the preliminary injunction has provided this; however, a final legal resolution of the matter is still pending.
Also, there is the matter of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the fifth grader. "It's unbelievable really, when you think about it," the ADF spokesman says. "What happened is the principal brought a slander suit against a 10-year-old child for three million dollars, and that's certainly one of the issues as yet to be cleared up."
Kellum says the family's legal representatives are "in discussions with the school" about the principal's lawsuit, "and our hope and our prayer is that [the matter of the slander allegation] along with other issues will be resolved as well."
In the meantime, the attorney notes, the Knox County school officials' apparent "fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution" has been addressed for now and "Luke Whitson should not be prevented from exercising his First Amendment right to read his Bible with friends during recess."
Kellum says the Constitution of the United States, far from prohibiting Bibles during recess, actually prohibits the wholesale banning of Bibles during recess.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602779/posts
Student Expelled for His Conservative Views Wins Suit, Returns Determined
Student Expelled for His Conservative Views Wins Suit, Returns Determined
Agape Press ^ | 3/23/06 | Jim Brown
An army veteran and graduate student at Le Moyne College in upstate New York who was expelled from his degree program because of his conservative philosophy of education is back in the classroom and speaking out.
Last year Le Moyne College, a Jesuit school located in Syracuse, dismissed Scott McConnell from its masters of education program for writing a paper in which he advocated the use of corporal punishment and criticized multiculturalism (see earlier story). The head of the school's education department told the "A" student his expulsion was the result of a "mismatch" between his personal beliefs and the school's program goals.
McConnell, an evangelical Christian as well as a conservative, filed a civil rights lawsuit, and his attorney argued that his dismissal was "a gross violation of McConnell's rights to freedom of expression." An appeals court subsequently ordered Le Moyne to reinstate the education student, and both sides in the dispute have since agreed to stop suing each other.
The reinstated graduate student feels he is finally being treated like every other Le Moyne College student, at least by the faculty. "I've been treated fairly by the professors," he says. However, he acknowledges that "some of the students look at me negatively; they give me dirty looks, and they kind of point at me."
On the other hand, McConnell notes, "The administration won't come within ten feet of me, which is fine with me. The more they stay away from me the faster I can get through this program."
The teacher-in-training says he is not concerned about the future. He contends, "I base everything on my faith in the Lord, and because of that, it's like the song He's the Rock of my Salvation. Well, that's my rock. I stand upon it, and I have nothing to worry about."
In fact, after receiving an A-minus on the paper he was expelled for writing, McConnell feels qualified to offer other Christian students a piece of advice. "If you're going to write a personal paper," he says, "make sure you have facts to back it up."
McConnell emphasizes that, without his faith in God, he would never have made it through his ordeal with Le Moyne College. When he finishes earning his master's degree, the graduate student says he would preferably like to teach in a private school because he disagrees with the way U.S. public schools are run.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602747/posts
Agape Press ^ | 3/23/06 | Jim Brown
An army veteran and graduate student at Le Moyne College in upstate New York who was expelled from his degree program because of his conservative philosophy of education is back in the classroom and speaking out.
Last year Le Moyne College, a Jesuit school located in Syracuse, dismissed Scott McConnell from its masters of education program for writing a paper in which he advocated the use of corporal punishment and criticized multiculturalism (see earlier story). The head of the school's education department told the "A" student his expulsion was the result of a "mismatch" between his personal beliefs and the school's program goals.
McConnell, an evangelical Christian as well as a conservative, filed a civil rights lawsuit, and his attorney argued that his dismissal was "a gross violation of McConnell's rights to freedom of expression." An appeals court subsequently ordered Le Moyne to reinstate the education student, and both sides in the dispute have since agreed to stop suing each other.
The reinstated graduate student feels he is finally being treated like every other Le Moyne College student, at least by the faculty. "I've been treated fairly by the professors," he says. However, he acknowledges that "some of the students look at me negatively; they give me dirty looks, and they kind of point at me."
On the other hand, McConnell notes, "The administration won't come within ten feet of me, which is fine with me. The more they stay away from me the faster I can get through this program."
The teacher-in-training says he is not concerned about the future. He contends, "I base everything on my faith in the Lord, and because of that, it's like the song He's the Rock of my Salvation. Well, that's my rock. I stand upon it, and I have nothing to worry about."
In fact, after receiving an A-minus on the paper he was expelled for writing, McConnell feels qualified to offer other Christian students a piece of advice. "If you're going to write a personal paper," he says, "make sure you have facts to back it up."
McConnell emphasizes that, without his faith in God, he would never have made it through his ordeal with Le Moyne College. When he finishes earning his master's degree, the graduate student says he would preferably like to teach in a private school because he disagrees with the way U.S. public schools are run.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1602747/posts
The Democrats Can Win Only If America Loses
The Democrats can win only if America loses
Thursday, March 23, 2006
It would seem that John Murtha's Kennedy-sponsored Profiles in Courage Award has gone unnoticed.
With the lack of hoopla over this honor I am obliged to add comment. I feel this award is as fitting as the Nobel Peace Prize was to ex-President Jimmy Carter, and considering both sources not surprising.
Carter has advanced peace by his instrumental work in the Korean agreement that gave North Korea time to obtain nuclear weapons. From Fidel and Chavez to the terrorist Hamas there has not been an anti-American or pro-Communist organization he has not supported. Thanks Jimmy.
As for the ludicrous award our own John Murtha has earned, let's be clear about the motives. He along with his fellow Democrats knows that the news from Iraq is not good. That is not to say that good news does not exist, but good news is not reported. The war can be lost right here at home with a helpful media, and it is incumbent that America lose in order for Democrats to win an election.
Demoralize the American public, with each enemy attack yell out for surrender. "Redeployment" equals surrender, equals lose a winnable war. Each time the enemy who is watching hears the likes of John Murtha say we can't afford to lose one more soldier they are emboldened to kill more soldiers. Not that this is a concern of Murtha -- after all there is an election to win.
John Murtha is not alone in this as the Democratic Party by a majority is invested and active in losing this war, with the notion that all can be righted after they are empowered. Murtha's dream chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee will never be obtained unless Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House, so you can bet the deal had been struck and, like a good foot soldier, Murtha is doing his best to undermine America in effort to hurt the incumbent party.
The true Profile in Courage award should be bestowed on Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman who has actually gone to Iraq and reported the good news that does exist. Lieberman has enough political savvy to know that he would lose all party support and face a likely loss of his seat in the primary because he dared put his country's interest and truth above political gain.
America should reward Lieberman as a true Profile in Courage for speaking a truth against his own political interest, and we in Western Pennsylvania should retire our enemy's friend, Jack Murtha.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601963/posts
Thursday, March 23, 2006
It would seem that John Murtha's Kennedy-sponsored Profiles in Courage Award has gone unnoticed.
With the lack of hoopla over this honor I am obliged to add comment. I feel this award is as fitting as the Nobel Peace Prize was to ex-President Jimmy Carter, and considering both sources not surprising.
Carter has advanced peace by his instrumental work in the Korean agreement that gave North Korea time to obtain nuclear weapons. From Fidel and Chavez to the terrorist Hamas there has not been an anti-American or pro-Communist organization he has not supported. Thanks Jimmy.
As for the ludicrous award our own John Murtha has earned, let's be clear about the motives. He along with his fellow Democrats knows that the news from Iraq is not good. That is not to say that good news does not exist, but good news is not reported. The war can be lost right here at home with a helpful media, and it is incumbent that America lose in order for Democrats to win an election.
Demoralize the American public, with each enemy attack yell out for surrender. "Redeployment" equals surrender, equals lose a winnable war. Each time the enemy who is watching hears the likes of John Murtha say we can't afford to lose one more soldier they are emboldened to kill more soldiers. Not that this is a concern of Murtha -- after all there is an election to win.
John Murtha is not alone in this as the Democratic Party by a majority is invested and active in losing this war, with the notion that all can be righted after they are empowered. Murtha's dream chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee will never be obtained unless Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House, so you can bet the deal had been struck and, like a good foot soldier, Murtha is doing his best to undermine America in effort to hurt the incumbent party.
The true Profile in Courage award should be bestowed on Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman who has actually gone to Iraq and reported the good news that does exist. Lieberman has enough political savvy to know that he would lose all party support and face a likely loss of his seat in the primary because he dared put his country's interest and truth above political gain.
America should reward Lieberman as a true Profile in Courage for speaking a truth against his own political interest, and we in Western Pennsylvania should retire our enemy's friend, Jack Murtha.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601963/posts
One Day Shipping From Blockbuster! Twice!
I have been a member of Blockbuster Online since Dec. 2004. Their shipping times sucked. At first it took them 5-6 days to send me DVDs (and 3-4 days for them to get my returns). After complaint after complaint, it improved (?) to 3-4 days shipping (and 2-3 days to get my returns). Only a mere handful of times did I get 2 days shipping and that was only because they sent their DVDs from a local store instead from a Distribution Center.
A couple of days ago, on the 23rd, I looked at my BB queue and saw that they were sending me my next two selections (I'm on the 3 out at a time plan). The first one which was shipped that day the 23rd, had an arrival date of the 27th. The second one had a shipping date of the 24th and an arrival date of the 28. I rolled my eyes and thought "Great. Typical. 4 days shipping. Again."
Imagine my surprise yesterday on the 24th when the first one shipped on the 23rd comes in the mail. And the one shipped on the 24th came in today, the 25th, instead of the 28th.
For the very first (and second time) in my membership with BB, I got one day shipping on two DVDs!!!!!! AND these DVDs were NOT sent from a local store but from one of their distribution centers!!!!!! (I know this because the envelopes do not have first class stamps attached to them) I wonder and hope if this will be a recurring trend.
Can I get a HALLELUJAH!!!!?
A couple of days ago, on the 23rd, I looked at my BB queue and saw that they were sending me my next two selections (I'm on the 3 out at a time plan). The first one which was shipped that day the 23rd, had an arrival date of the 27th. The second one had a shipping date of the 24th and an arrival date of the 28. I rolled my eyes and thought "Great. Typical. 4 days shipping. Again."
Imagine my surprise yesterday on the 24th when the first one shipped on the 23rd comes in the mail. And the one shipped on the 24th came in today, the 25th, instead of the 28th.
For the very first (and second time) in my membership with BB, I got one day shipping on two DVDs!!!!!! AND these DVDs were NOT sent from a local store but from one of their distribution centers!!!!!! (I know this because the envelopes do not have first class stamps attached to them) I wonder and hope if this will be a recurring trend.
Can I get a HALLELUJAH!!!!?
Monday, March 20, 2006
Ok, who tried to get my password?
Some idiot tried to get my blogger.com password in order to access my private area here at blogger.com. Blogger.com sent me two emails on the 16th, indicating that "I" made the request to change my password. I haven't accessed my blogger pages since the 5th. Much less made any request to have my password changed.
Sorry schmuck, whoever you are. Didn't work.
No doubt it was some "open minded liberal" who tried to access my password in order to sabotage my blog.
Sorry schmuck, whoever you are. Didn't work.
No doubt it was some "open minded liberal" who tried to access my password in order to sabotage my blog.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
"Associate Editor" falls for phony legislation
John Nichols of "Rgw Capitol Times" of Madison, WI writes:
John Nichols: Bill to ban GOP adoptions opens eyes
By John Nichols
Ohio state Sen. Bob Hagan has for decades been one of the nation's most progressive-minded and intellectually adventurous state legislators. Imagine Madison Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan with a Senate seat and two more decades of legislative experience.
So it comes as no surprise that Hagan, a Democrat from Youngstown, would blaze a new policymaking trail with a plan to reform adoption laws.
Hagan's proposal: Ban Republicans from adopting children.
(More at the above link)
Yet the legislation is a spoof:
Spoof bill would ban adoptions by Republicans
John Nichols: Bill to ban GOP adoptions opens eyes
By John Nichols
Ohio state Sen. Bob Hagan has for decades been one of the nation's most progressive-minded and intellectually adventurous state legislators. Imagine Madison Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan with a Senate seat and two more decades of legislative experience.
So it comes as no surprise that Hagan, a Democrat from Youngstown, would blaze a new policymaking trail with a plan to reform adoption laws.
Hagan's proposal: Ban Republicans from adopting children.
(More at the above link)
Yet the legislation is a spoof:
Spoof bill would ban adoptions by Republicans
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Carter Seeks Vote in U.N. Against U.S.
Carter Seeks Vote in U.N. Against U.S.
New York Sun ^ | March 3, 2006 | BENNY AVNI
President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.
Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."
While other former presidents have tried to refrain from attacking the sitting chief executive, Mr. Carter's attacks on President Bush have increased. The episode he recounted yesterday showed how he tried to undermine officials at lower levels in an effort to influence policy.
The story, as Mr. Carter recalled, began with a recent dinner for 17 he attended in New York, where the guests included the president of the U.N. General Assembly, Jan Eliasson; an unidentified American representative, and other U.N. ambassadors from "powerful" countries at Turtle Bay, of which he mentioned only three: Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan. The topic was the ongoing negotiations on an attempt to replace the widely discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission with a more accountable Human Rights Council.
"One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Carter said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1589346/posts
Wouldn't this put Carter in violation of the Logan Act of 1799?
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
___________________
"Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue..."
-snip
"One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Carter said.
-snip
Of ALL the unmitigated GALL!!!
New York Sun ^ | March 3, 2006 | BENNY AVNI
President Carter personally called Secretary of State Rice to try to convince her to reverse her U.N. ambassador's position on changes to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the former president recalled yesterday in a talk in which he also criticized President Bush's Christian bona fides and misstated past American policies on Israel.
Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue that was undermined by America's ambassador, John Bolton. "My hope is that when the vote is taken," he told the Council on Foreign Relations, "the other members will outvote the United States."
While other former presidents have tried to refrain from attacking the sitting chief executive, Mr. Carter's attacks on President Bush have increased. The episode he recounted yesterday showed how he tried to undermine officials at lower levels in an effort to influence policy.
The story, as Mr. Carter recalled, began with a recent dinner for 17 he attended in New York, where the guests included the president of the U.N. General Assembly, Jan Eliasson; an unidentified American representative, and other U.N. ambassadors from "powerful" countries at Turtle Bay, of which he mentioned only three: Cuba, Egypt, and Pakistan. The topic was the ongoing negotiations on an attempt to replace the widely discredited Geneva-based Human Rights Commission with a more accountable Human Rights Council.
"One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Carter said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1589346/posts
Wouldn't this put Carter in violation of the Logan Act of 1799?
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
___________________
"Mr. Carter said he made a personal promise to ambassadors from Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba on the U.N. change issue..."
-snip
"One of the things I assured them of was that the United States was not going to dominate all the other nations of the world in the Human Rights Council," Mr. Carter said. However, on the next day, Carter said, Mr. Bolton publicly "demanded" that the five permanent members of the Security Council will have permanent seats on the new council as well, "which subverted exactly what I have promised them," Carter said.
-snip
Of ALL the unmitigated GALL!!!
Thursday, March 02, 2006
UCI Psychiatrist Bilked by Nigerian E-Mails (had claimed Reagan had diminished mental ability)
UCI Psychiatrist Bilked by Nigerian E-Mails (had claimed Reagan had diminished mental ability)
Los Angeles Times ^ | March 2, 2006 | William Lobdell,
A renowned psychiatrist from UC Irvine was duped into squandering at least $1.3 million of his family's fortune on a Nigeria Internet scam, according to a lawsuit recently filed by his son.
...Louis Gottschalk, a neuroscientist, is the founding chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at UCI College of Medicine. He gained national prominence by announcing in 1987 that President Reagan had been suffering from diminished mental ability as early as 1980.
He came to this conclusion by using the Gottschalk-Gleser scales, an internationally used diagnostic tool he helped develop for charting impairments in brain function, to measure speech patterns in Reagan's 1980 and 1984 presidential debates.
In 1997, Gottschalk gave $1.5 million to the UCI College of Medicine. In exchange, school officials named the medical plaza after him and his late wife.
More recently, Gottschalk coinvented software that uncovered a link between childhood attention-deficit disorder and adult addiction to alcohol and drugs. And in 2004, at age 87, he published his latest book, "World War II: Neuropsychiatric Casualties, Out of Sight, Out of Mind."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com
Los Angeles Times ^ | March 2, 2006 | William Lobdell,
A renowned psychiatrist from UC Irvine was duped into squandering at least $1.3 million of his family's fortune on a Nigeria Internet scam, according to a lawsuit recently filed by his son.
...Louis Gottschalk, a neuroscientist, is the founding chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at UCI College of Medicine. He gained national prominence by announcing in 1987 that President Reagan had been suffering from diminished mental ability as early as 1980.
He came to this conclusion by using the Gottschalk-Gleser scales, an internationally used diagnostic tool he helped develop for charting impairments in brain function, to measure speech patterns in Reagan's 1980 and 1984 presidential debates.
In 1997, Gottschalk gave $1.5 million to the UCI College of Medicine. In exchange, school officials named the medical plaza after him and his late wife.
More recently, Gottschalk coinvented software that uncovered a link between childhood attention-deficit disorder and adult addiction to alcohol and drugs. And in 2004, at age 87, he published his latest book, "World War II: Neuropsychiatric Casualties, Out of Sight, Out of Mind."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com
UNHINGED TEACHER CAUGHT ON TAPE
From Michelle Malkin:
A 16-year-old World Geography student, Sean Allen, taped his Bush-bashing, capitalism-hating high school teacher's screeching diatribe.
Here's the audio. You have to listen to believe it.
"Allen's father apparently gave a copy of the taped discussion to KOA radio host Mike Rosen, who did a show on the subject Wednesday."
KOA has made Bennish's 20-minute rant available as a podcast here.
Little Green Footballs (LGF) has it on MP3
Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!
What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?
Make sure you get these definitions down.
Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.
Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.
Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.
There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!
0345.
[Pause.]
I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.
Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.
0452
...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!
0530.
Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.
The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.
Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.
Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.
So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]
0625.
Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?
This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!
He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.
0759.
Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.
We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.
I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?
0841
Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.
We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.
What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!
0950.
*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*
Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?
1007
Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?
Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...
Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?
Allen: We gave it to them.
Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.
If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.
Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?
Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.
Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.
Bennish: Do you know that?
Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?
A 16-year-old World Geography student, Sean Allen, taped his Bush-bashing, capitalism-hating high school teacher's screeching diatribe.
Here's the audio. You have to listen to believe it.
"Allen's father apparently gave a copy of the taped discussion to KOA radio host Mike Rosen, who did a show on the subject Wednesday."
KOA has made Bennish's 20-minute rant available as a podcast here.
Little Green Footballs (LGF) has it on MP3
Bennish: [tape begins with class already underway. Bennish completing an unintelligble statement about Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.] Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good.
Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!
What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?
Make sure you get these definitions down.
Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing PROFIT! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.
Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.
Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.
There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!
0345.
[Pause.]
I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these [definitions] down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.
Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's [State of the Union] speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.
0452
...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!
0530.
Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!
Unidentified brainwashed student interjects: We are.
The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.
Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.
Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!
The United States.
So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack? [Unintelligible.]
0625.
Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?
This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night--and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important) is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!
He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.
0759.
Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.
We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.
I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long?
0841
Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.
We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.
What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?!
0950.
*Student Sean Allen, who is taping Bennish's rant, speaks up:*
Allen: Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?
1007
Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?
Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...
Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?
Allen: We gave it to them.
Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.
If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.
Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?
Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.
Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.
Bennish: Do you know that?
Allen: So, you're saying the United States has the intention to kill innocent people?
McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owners From Criticizing His Anti-gun Record
McCain Still Trying To Gag Gun Owners From Criticizing His Anti-gun Record
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
A few weeks ago, we alerted you to legislation -- introduced by anti-gun Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- which is aimed at squelching the First Amendment rights of grassroots groups like Gun Owners of America.
That bill, S. 2128, is ostensibly aimed at dealing with some of the congressional controversies that have hit the media in recent weeks. A true reform bill would focus the spotlight on members like John McCain, who was one of the original Keating Five senators who were deeply implicated in the savings and loan scandal.
Instead, McCain began his war on real transparency in 2002 when he teamed up with anti-gun Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to push the Incumbent Protection Act into law -- an act that stifles the ability of organizations like GOA to criticize elected officials before an election.
Now with the Gag Act (S. 2128), McCain wants to target his wrath on groups like GOA -- requiring them to register their "grassroots" communications and to file twice as many frivolous reports.
If McCain succeeds in pushing an expansive interpretation of his bill (as he did when he convinced the courts to regulate the Internet under McCain-Feingold), then we could see a host of draconian restrictions affecting both GOA and you.
For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in our nation's capital, we could first have to tell McCain (and all his other buddies in Congress) about what we're planning to do, who we're planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much money we plan to spend, etc.
Because of Section 105 in this bill, everyone with whom GOA contracts to get the word out (advertisers, printers, etc.) could be required to tell Congress twenty days in advance about GOA's public information campaign.
In effect, we would end up alerting Sarah Brady every time we plan to wage a grassroots campaign in opposition to gun control.
This is ridiculous!
No doubt, the Gag Act is further proof that grassroots lobbying works. It works so well, that John McCain wants to muzzle it.
S. 2128 -- or a bill that is similar to it -- is now likely to come to the floor of the Senate in early March, according to Majority Leader Bill Frist. It is imperative that we contact our Senators today.
ACTION:
1. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Gag Act (S. 2128). And, if your Senator has cosponsored the bill, then he or she especially needs to hear from you. Senators who have cosponsored this bill are:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
2. Take action and then please forward this alert to your pro-gun friends and family!
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
Now that the Senate is looking to pass so-called lobbying reform legislation, I hope you will NOT support any bill that would gag grassroots lobbying organizations.
To be sure, John McCain's bill (S. 2128) would do just that!
In 2002, Senators McCain and Feingold teamed up to pass the Incumbent Protection Act, a bill that infringes upon the First Amendment rights of gun owners and other Americans by squelching their ability to criticize elected officials before an election.
Now, Senator McCain wants to pass the Gag Act (S. 2128). In this latest version, McCain targets his wrath on grassroots organizations -- requiring them to register their "grassroots" communications with their members and to file twice as many frivolous reports.
Please oppose S. 2128 or any other "reform" bill that would scapegoat outside groups, through which American citizens are better able to petition their government and which serve as government watchdogs.
Sincerely,
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
A few weeks ago, we alerted you to legislation -- introduced by anti-gun Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- which is aimed at squelching the First Amendment rights of grassroots groups like Gun Owners of America.
That bill, S. 2128, is ostensibly aimed at dealing with some of the congressional controversies that have hit the media in recent weeks. A true reform bill would focus the spotlight on members like John McCain, who was one of the original Keating Five senators who were deeply implicated in the savings and loan scandal.
Instead, McCain began his war on real transparency in 2002 when he teamed up with anti-gun Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to push the Incumbent Protection Act into law -- an act that stifles the ability of organizations like GOA to criticize elected officials before an election.
Now with the Gag Act (S. 2128), McCain wants to target his wrath on groups like GOA -- requiring them to register their "grassroots" communications and to file twice as many frivolous reports.
If McCain succeeds in pushing an expansive interpretation of his bill (as he did when he convinced the courts to regulate the Internet under McCain-Feingold), then we could see a host of draconian restrictions affecting both GOA and you.
For example, if we wanted to alert you to gun ban that is moving in our nation's capital, we could first have to tell McCain (and all his other buddies in Congress) about what we're planning to do, who we're planning to alert (that is, grassroots folks like yourself), how much money we plan to spend, etc.
Because of Section 105 in this bill, everyone with whom GOA contracts to get the word out (advertisers, printers, etc.) could be required to tell Congress twenty days in advance about GOA's public information campaign.
In effect, we would end up alerting Sarah Brady every time we plan to wage a grassroots campaign in opposition to gun control.
This is ridiculous!
No doubt, the Gag Act is further proof that grassroots lobbying works. It works so well, that John McCain wants to muzzle it.
S. 2128 -- or a bill that is similar to it -- is now likely to come to the floor of the Senate in early March, according to Majority Leader Bill Frist. It is imperative that we contact our Senators today.
ACTION:
1. Please urge your Senators to oppose the Gag Act (S. 2128). And, if your Senator has cosponsored the bill, then he or she especially needs to hear from you. Senators who have cosponsored this bill are:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message such as the one below.
2. Take action and then please forward this alert to your pro-gun friends and family!
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear Senator:
Now that the Senate is looking to pass so-called lobbying reform legislation, I hope you will NOT support any bill that would gag grassroots lobbying organizations.
To be sure, John McCain's bill (S. 2128) would do just that!
In 2002, Senators McCain and Feingold teamed up to pass the Incumbent Protection Act, a bill that infringes upon the First Amendment rights of gun owners and other Americans by squelching their ability to criticize elected officials before an election.
Now, Senator McCain wants to pass the Gag Act (S. 2128). In this latest version, McCain targets his wrath on grassroots organizations -- requiring them to register their "grassroots" communications with their members and to file twice as many frivolous reports.
Please oppose S. 2128 or any other "reform" bill that would scapegoat outside groups, through which American citizens are better able to petition their government and which serve as government watchdogs.
Sincerely,
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Dead soldier's home vandalized
Kokomo, February 27 - For the family who lives in a modest home in Kokomo the fatal Iraq attack came last week.
Then the attack at home followed.
Vandals defaced the home of Sgt. Rickey Jones' family. Eggs were thrown and flags were stolen. Sgt. Jones, a Kokomo High School graduate, was one four soldier's with the 101st killed west of Baghdad last week.
So who, one week before his burial in his hometown, would vandalize a fallen hero's house. Neighbor Robyn Ousley is at a loss to explain.
"I have no idea. Somebody pretty, pretty awful."
Another friend, Bill Swaggerty, says there is more than vandalism for the family to deal with.
"They're calling here and saying 'I'm glad your son is dead' and it's wrong."
The family's neighbors have closed ranks, bringing food and flying flags at half-staff. All are signs of respect for Sgt. Jones.
But there is a threat of disrespect from out of state.
The same Kansas church group that has been picketing soldier's funerals around the U.S. and Indiana will be in Kokomo too. The group claims U.S. soldier deaths are punishment for U.S. tolerance of Gays.
Kokomo police will have extra security and are running extra patrols at the house. Swaggerty, a veteran himself, says he convinced Rickey Jones to join up. He can't believe Sgt. Jones' memory would be attacked in this way.
"It's wrong. He would come home on leave. His friends (were) very respectful to my wife and my family. He was a very good kid."
Swaggerty supports a move in the legislature to keep protesters back from military funerals.
Neighbor Ousley agrees. "He just went over there for us. I think it is awful."
Services for Sgt. Jones are set for next Monday. In the meantime Kokomo police have increased patrols around his family's house.
____________________________
From FreeRepublic.com:
I'm sending a sympathy card care of:
Kokomo High School
2501 S. Berkley Road
Kokomo, Indiana 46902
Maybe if we flood them with care, we can undo a little of the evil they are enduring.
8 posted on 02/28/2006 5:15:16 AM PST by Samwise
Then the attack at home followed.
Vandals defaced the home of Sgt. Rickey Jones' family. Eggs were thrown and flags were stolen. Sgt. Jones, a Kokomo High School graduate, was one four soldier's with the 101st killed west of Baghdad last week.
So who, one week before his burial in his hometown, would vandalize a fallen hero's house. Neighbor Robyn Ousley is at a loss to explain.
"I have no idea. Somebody pretty, pretty awful."
Another friend, Bill Swaggerty, says there is more than vandalism for the family to deal with.
"They're calling here and saying 'I'm glad your son is dead' and it's wrong."
The family's neighbors have closed ranks, bringing food and flying flags at half-staff. All are signs of respect for Sgt. Jones.
But there is a threat of disrespect from out of state.
The same Kansas church group that has been picketing soldier's funerals around the U.S. and Indiana will be in Kokomo too. The group claims U.S. soldier deaths are punishment for U.S. tolerance of Gays.
Kokomo police will have extra security and are running extra patrols at the house. Swaggerty, a veteran himself, says he convinced Rickey Jones to join up. He can't believe Sgt. Jones' memory would be attacked in this way.
"It's wrong. He would come home on leave. His friends (were) very respectful to my wife and my family. He was a very good kid."
Swaggerty supports a move in the legislature to keep protesters back from military funerals.
Neighbor Ousley agrees. "He just went over there for us. I think it is awful."
Services for Sgt. Jones are set for next Monday. In the meantime Kokomo police have increased patrols around his family's house.
____________________________
From FreeRepublic.com:
I'm sending a sympathy card care of:
Kokomo High School
2501 S. Berkley Road
Kokomo, Indiana 46902
Maybe if we flood them with care, we can undo a little of the evil they are enduring.
8 posted on 02/28/2006 5:15:16 AM PST by Samwise
